General Rawat, with a tenure of over three years and three months-the longest for an army chief since General K. Sundarji in 1988-could possibly make a difference here.

The appointment of an Indian army chief causes a stir only when it deviates from a hoary tradition called the seniority principle. Otherwise, the elevation of the senior-most among eight lieutenant generals - seven army commanders and the vice chief of army staff - is a fairly routine one. The seniority line-up allows observers to accurately predict at least two successive incoming army chiefs.

So on December 17, when the government announced that Lt General Bipin Rawat, the present vice chief of army staff - and not the senior-most army commander, Lt General Praveen Bakshi or the next senior-most, Southern Army Commander Lt General PM Hariz - would be the 26th chief of the army staff, it electrified military circles. Soon, a furious debate had erupted within the armed forces on whether this had sounded the death knell for the seniority principle, which has long guided the appointment of service chiefs.

Appointing a service chief is the prerogative of the government's Cabinet Committee on Appointments. Government rules say seniority and merit are the twin pillars for appointment of chief of the 1.3 million strong army. Governments have usually opted for seniority, decided by the date of an officer's commission at the Indian Military Academy, Dehra Dun. (The IMA commissioning board's order of merit decides the seniority of two officers commissioned on the same date.) In the past, the government had bucked this unwritten seniority principle just once-in 1983, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government appointed General Arun Vaidya as army chief over the senior-most army commander, Lt General SK Sinha. It caused a flutter, especially when General Sinha chose to resign rather than serve under his junior.

LT General Praveen Bakshi

When General Rawat assumes office on January 1, 2017, the situation will even more awkward for one simple reason. As commander of the Dimapur-based 3 Corps, Lt General Rawat directly reported to Kolkata-based Eastern Army Commander Lt General Bakshi. The opposition was quick to spot an issue to embarrass the government. Punjab Congress chief Amarinder Singh termed the move unprofessional. "In case of Lt Gen Bipin Rawat, you are superseding two very good army commanders, both of whom are fit for the job. I think this is completely unprofessional..."

Interestingly, the seniority principle was followed for three other crucial appointments announced with that of General Rawat - IB chief Rajiv Jain, RAW chief Anil Dhasmana and the new IAF chief Air Chief Marshal B.S. Dhanoa - all of whom assume office on the same day, January 1.

"What we need is to create a system where merit comes up in such a manner that no one can use it subjectively to impose his value system," says a former Lt General. There are no indications the government plans to create a merit-based system for selecting its military brass, just as there is no sign of the creation of a permanent Chairman Chiefs of Staff.

While defence minister Manohar Parrikar is an enthusiastic proponent of the concept of a single-point military adviser to the government, there is no sign of the post being created by the government. On December 29, navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba is set to take over as the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, now mainly a ceremonial post held by the senior-most service chief.

Senior army officers call the new army chief's appointment an ominous precedent and see it as another act in an internecine war between the infantry and other combat arms-artillery and armoured corps (General Rawat is an infantry officer while General Bakshi is from the armoured corps). Seniority, they argue, has been the arbiter thus far because it eliminates lobbying and subjectivity. "If the seniority principle is removed and left open to interpretation, then the system will be totally wrecked by vested interests who will then start lobbying for appointments," says a former Lt General on anonymity.

Defence ministry officials argue that Lt General Rawat's selection was done purely on merit and had nothing to do with the arm of service to which he belonged. "Counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency are key issues in the current security situation," MoD officials say. "The background and operational experience of the officers on the panel were considered in depth while selecting the next COAS."

Lt Gen Rawat, the MoD says, fulfills this criteria because he commanded a division in J&K and was familiar with the functioning of the Army HQ & MoD in his capacity as Vice Chief-and his general dynamism also tipped the scales in his favour. Senior army officials say Lt General Rawat's role in the cross-border raids into militant camps in Myanmar last year, when he was 3 Corps Commander, and the army's surgical strikes into PoK on September 29, when he was Vice Chief, played a significant role.

"The seniority debate is a storm in a tea cup," says Major General Surjit Singh (retired). "The seniority principle is not the criteria in most world armies-merit and government prerogative are."

Even with the army, the seniority debate is likely to be seen as a relatively inconsequential distraction given the magnitude of equipment shortages and training issues facing the world's third largest army. A modernisation plan mooted in the 1990s still hasn't taken off. Another bane is the relatively short tenures of army chiefs. The last seven chiefs have had an average tenure of a little over two years. General Rawat, with a tenure of three years -- the longest for an army chief since General VP Malik in 2000 -- could possibly make a difference here.

Follow the writer on Twitter @SandeepUnnithan

Get real-time alerts and all the news on your phone with the all-new India Today app. Download from